see the blood stains that still remain from that horrible morning. >> next on american history tv, historians and university leaders discuss free speech and academic freedom on college campuses and the responsibility of administrators, faculty, and students when sharing ideas. they also talk about how social media has changed the nature of discourse in university settings. halfis about an hour and a , recorded at the american historical association annual >> i am sanford unger, director of the free speech project at thegetown university and former president of a college in baltimore. we had an excellent panel, two

leaders of liberal arts colleges universities,s of all of whom share a lot of similar concerns and issues. i'm sorry? louder. ok. do i need to start again? so that means everyone has to speak directly into these microphones. i want to introduce our panelists. we have the president of davidson college. she is a long accomplished administrator, and has spent much of her career in houston, where she was a vice president of international disciplinary initiatives. to her left is the provost of northwestern university.

until he moved to northwestern last year, he was the dean of morgannd the edmund s. professor of african american history and studies at yale. he is working on many interesting projects, and has written an introduction for the dubbois' epicf "souls of black folk," still used in many universities to address the issues of our time. we have the executive dean of colleges -- of letters and sciences at the university of california, berkeley. she is a professor of history and a scholar with 20 years of experience teaching at berkeley. right is the president of

wesley and university in connecticut. he was previously president of the california college of the getty research institute in los angeles. he came to make trouble at wesleyan. three of the four dr. doctorates theirnceton -- got doctorates at princeton, everybody but jonathan and me. i don't have a doctorate. this is just a sort of side issue, whether princeton training reveals itself in the course of our conversations. people are more affected by their undergraduate institutions that undergraduate ones. undergraduate -- than

graduate ones. one of the things i want us to talk about, because i believe since many people will be in attendance this morning and are , our faculty members work at places where there have been quite a few controversies over speech by members of the faculty. topic that we might discuss is the question of the distinction between free speech and academic freedom, whether they are in fact identical or subtley different ror very different matters to be concerned with at our institutions of higher education.

i wonder if you would like to take that first. caroline: the question you are asking is about the relationship between the commitment to free speech and the speech of faculty the way this issue has been framed in public debate focuses on free speech. i am not the most qualified person to speak about the distinction between free speech and academic freedom. i will say that academic freedom is largely about inquiry and the freedom to pursue even wildly unpopular lines of research in the interests of arriving at with theght, recognition that many of the most important areas of research today were at one time wildly unpopular and dismissed as outrageous.

when i talk about this issue, i tend to talk about the ways in which we as institutions of education are committed to trading environment that fosters free thinking by everyone, and that free inquiry actually benefits from inclusion and diversity, the ways in which we can pursue knowledge and create insight benefits significantly diversity among people asking the questions. rather than thinking about free speech and academic freedom, there is a way to frame this so is actually a prerequisite for an expanded ,otion of free inquiry regarding issues we want our college students to be able to ask and pursue. i would frame the academic freedom of your quite --

dimension of your question in that way. vc as a part of that a commitment to diversity and theusion precisely because more diverse population of people asking the questions, the broader the lines of inquiry will be. sanford: i think that is very helpful. university,large theeley for example, country seems to react quickly and forcefully to anything that happens at berkeley. doesn't help clarify some of the controversies you had to deal with to draw distinction -- does of the clarify some controversies you had to deal

with to draw distinction between free speech and academic freedom? arol: this is a cherished part of our tradition. as the home of the student free speech movement, berkeley is always in the public eye. it is a beacon for that conversation. i think academic freedom in general has been more faculty focused, rather than a student focused conversation. we think about the genesis of these concepts, academic freedom emerged in the early 20th to defendound 1919, the right and autonomy of the faculty as a space of free inquiry in relationship to political interference by the powers of the administration. that idea of self-regulation of the faculty seems to be beeping at the core of academic freedom thing at the core of

academic freedom and the whole history of tenure in this country. free speech is the student version of academic freedom. mario was quite eloquent on this -- sanford: the founder of this free speech movement in 1964. carol: freedom of speech comes with responsibility to self-governance of the students, of their public conversations. there is a connection, that is where they touch each other, academic freedom in some ways engages students, in a kind of tiononsibility for the cura of their own public conversation and the rights to have that conversation in the same way be faculty had enjoyed it in the earlier part of the 20th century

. in an article written by the -- law yale golf school school, there should be a defense of freedom of speech on any college campus, academic freedom is the higher principle on the college campus. the faculty and the administration have the right to limit and to judge and i don't happen to share that view, i happen to be on the berkeley with thehis debate, dean of our law school. what extent does the faculty and the administration have the right to limit the kind of speech to exercise professional discretion about what kind of speech should be on

campus? it has been brought back into the conversation. i think it can be clearly separated. johnson, is there helpful distinctions to be drawn here? academic freedom is sort of an inside issue, as carla or some people describe. speech more the outside issue would be the interface of the college or the university with the public at large. is that helpful? jonathan: it wouldn't take much for -- to persuade me that is an effective way of thinking about it. doespoint doesn't -- address your question, about public and private and social good.

schoolsvarious types of on this panel and one of the most important distinctions is public versus private. free speech as a constitutional ideal does not apply to the private, which most people don't realize. know about that i embraces the idea of freedom of expression. it helps to understand why have had veryvate different times with interlopers acting in bad faith trying to test free speech on campus. i think we are talking about the public contract of service, which is what private and public are engaged with. speech expression of

being a public good kind of isn't isolated. colleague and his adjudicateho can speech, it is worth thinking about. universities are supposed to be marketplace of ideas, and we should be testing all kinds of ideas, comfortable and uncomfortable especially. academics, we-- our ability ceding to say that is wrong. that is the point of caring out ideas in the first place. out ideas in the first place. this is where public safety needs to be taken into account. and call the phenomenon what it

is, acts of bad faith, by people not understanding free expression on colleges and university campuses. the public-private phenomenon is a real thing. we need to be talking about our to improving the quality of the public discourse around us everywhere. caroline: it seems like we need to make some distinctions, there is a kind of category that takes place in the public debate, which makes it hard to articulate with clarity what it is colleges and universities are

trying to do. there is a difference between talking about this in terms of freedom of inquiry and the pursuit of ideas and the constitutional right to free speech. there is a deep commitment to on collegeinquiry and university campuses that is special and builds on this notion of constitutional free-speech. you talk about inquiry in that way, but inquiry and speech are different. self-governance and the demand for autonomy brings with it a responsibility for the public that you are creating on campus. how do we have a conversation about what that means and invite the students and faculty and everyone into helping us figure that out? what kind of public fear or be creating and what kind of public feared we wish to create? can we make the distinction

between an argument and an affect? if it is not reputable, it is not an argument. calling. sanford: michael, you have done a lot of thinking on these issues. i appreciate you weighing in on the nexus between academic freedom and free speech. michael: academic freedom is an ,dea that protects faculty before the free speech movement of berkeley their birth will t loyalty oathswere to protect the faculty from being fired if they belonged to the communist party. thatdea was certainly faculty as citizens should have

rights, and participate in a many variety of activities without a detriment to their professional life as their -- as academics. i do think the marketplace of is as faulty for expression as it is for economics. it works a one of the time and also fails as well -- a lot of the time and fails as well. we have a managed freedom of expression. --university has an further unfettered inquiry. there were plenty of topics that would not be appropriate for the orange county chapter of the ben birch society that won't

on the docket for the american circles association. we manage freedom of inquiry. the questions for administrators and professors is what kind of things do you what people say, what kind of questions to let people ask, and what kind of questions do you say are off-limits? there is always something off-limits. asking ourselves what kind of freedom for faculty we think should be protected and what kind of freedom for faculty we think should be protected, not just speech, expression, which becomes harassment, which we havemany things that an easy time saying today is inappropriate oor a fireable offense. other times we say it is less clear.

if you say something offensive politically as a faculty member, we want to protect your rights to do that. some things we refuse to protect. there areuiry side, kinds of questions we foster. we actually facilitate certain kinds of questions. questions we other may not outlaw, because we don't have to, because the culture of academic yet is extraordinarily assertive and his students know there are certain kind of questions they are not allowed to -- and his students know there are kinds of questions they are not allowed to ask. decide what kind of inquiry we want to see fostered. all of the schools have admission policies. none of these schools believe in unfettered diversity. they had extremely selective

--ission policies, which is which allows us to say there are some things we want to pursue and other things we don't. if you say that everyone can come to the marketplace, that is a fantasy of american democracy and academia. >> disciplines have rules. there is analytical rigor. i don't think anyone would take the position you have outlined. michael: unfettered inquiry and diversity is essential for the pursuit of research. sure, but it's also essential you limit them. think you just called me an "ignorant slut." >> you said it was a character

-- caricature. inquirylot of ways that takes place. there are good and bad historical questions. governs this are the rules sense iry, so in some am not suggesting that anything goes. i am suggesting that academics who are trained in these disciplines and our training their students in these the able to pursue, without a litmus test of the appropriateness of the deal, or the topic, the questions they pursue. the foundation of the questions we pursue our the rules of the discipline. ichael: maybe another way to

clarify that is who would adjudicate? >> what was said earlier about the differences between public and private universities is true, although in california, the law compels private and public universities to extend the same kind of freedoms that public universities are mandated to do. it is correct we have an obligation to keep the campuses open to any student organization and the public at large. you are hearing something of a here, butifference, in the classroom, it is perfectly clear that the professor adjudicates. sanford: a particular professor only? caroline: up to a point.

we do have a policy on academic freedom. for the purposes that michael ascribed, there is distinction between a professors public and private activities. in order to protect the right of professors and the freedom of professors to be politically engaged outside of the classroom. but the rubber hits the road when the professor is teaching politics. where we arelaces most challenged in these environments. professor of the middle east to has a particular position on the middle east might cross the line between instruction and advocacy. that is not a simple line to navigate. many of the controversies we have seen at berkeley, whether it is one side of the political spectrum are the other -- or the other, are students who are concerned about or disapprove of the positions that professors

may profess in those particular kinds of settings. area where we have seen the most distress. as some people may know, this is a very controversy -- big controversy. students called a very radical professor a white supremacist because he is a radical and teaching a class on the struggles of the immigrants on the border. to the: so that gets question of, who is entitled to speak about what? correct. he said he would speak to the students out of the class. in purely, they were harassing him.

in theory, students could file a complaint for harassment. i think we are starting to see these tensions between who adjudicates in the classroom. i don't think outside of the classroom, that is quite clear. i think recognize student organizations have the right to invite speakers. we have a constitutional duty to protect that right. i don't think that we in the state of california could apply -- post doctorate post-doctrine successfully, in a legal sense. sanford: how important the distinction might be between what faculty members say in the performance of their teaching and research duties, and faculty beyond that, social

media has complicated this tremendously. jonathan, i wanted to ask you whether you think it is appropriate. some people think it is necessary to take into account faculty members so-called extracurricular utterances, what they say on mine, -- online , in various formats, gets picked up, and the distinction may not be drawn by the public or the donors or by various authorities between what is in there are am -- notorious cases, oberlin and trinity were two places where there were some very difficult controversies. jonathan: this is enormously complicated. a part of it is quite simple.

what a professor does in his private time -- they have the right to be citizens. on behalf ofay involved with social media -- we are in a whole new world right now. the social media video -- veto is far more dangerous and pernicious and life-threatening. response is what a of theor does outside classroom as a citizen is that person's own business. it may be a board of trustees those are what

administrators are paid to deal with, and there is no winning side. but there are a couple of where ans administrator can fairly ask, where it -- will this professor of the able to do his or her job? i think this is something i would have to weigh if i were involved. of of the real challenges social media is things that are , allficantly more complex the new wants is washed away. -- nuance is washed away. it doesn't do justice to everyone involved in the process. i don't have an answer for you beyond that, except social media

has done some transformative and positive things, and destroyed along the way. michael: you are new at northwestern -- sanford: your new at northwestern. are some ongoing controversies about some things the faculty of that northwestern saidf northwestern has that have drawn a great deal of attention. people have said, how can you allow these people to poison children's minds with their hatred? jonathan: i don't think they know what's happening. question, but indicative of what the terms are. anger is expressed in those kind of terms.

i can't comment. to exactly what makes the problem worse. we are doing nothing when we are protecting the rights of the individuals involved. individuals have incredible freedom to do whatever they want to do, continue to do, professionally on tweets and what's not. -- and whatnot. violating my responsibility to protect the faculty is miserable. i have only been at northwestern six months. but i was a senior administrator at yale.

i go back to what i said before -- this pertains to some people n thesehwestern -- whe issues come up, we take the time to find out what is happening in the classroom. hyper-politicized, ?roubling, strange is this part of their pedagogy? or is this what they think as john public? if it's the latter, i have to accept it. if they are keeping that outside of the classroom, they are abiding by their response abilities as an instructor. as creative as they want to outside and make the board completely lose their minds, but that is the fact of it. point,go back to your

the world of social media has changed the terms. the complexity has been stripped away. the scale is much larger than it used to be. silence that administrators in good conscience have to maintain is becoming more difficult. d: michael, one of the things the general public has extremely strong views about without necessarily knowing very much about what happens on university campuses is this notion that students and faculty only want to hear one point of view, or views from one direction, and that other people get censored or interruptive. you have talked about the need for affirmative action of some sort for a broader range of speakers on campuses.

that is something i was concerned with when i was a college president as well. how is that going? michael: i call for affirmative action for conservative thinkers, not speakers. the issue around speakers is the issue about entertainment -- who do you have for commencement? what man did you invite for your graduation party? someone was disinvited from vassar 30 years ago. you book the wrong band, these things happen. it's the party. i don't think speakers have much to do with inquiry. some schools, the laws are good --bad, in different state universities are in the entertainment business and therefore in the crowd control business. as really big schools like northwestern and berkeley, they

deal with crowd control the time -- all the time, usually at athletics. that is part of the administrative nightmare, their responsibilities. i do think having a broader range of ideas on faculties, especially of the humanities and social sciences, would be a good thing. carroll saidwhat about having a broad range of perspectives. it is a freek - market of hiring. i used to do a lot of interviews. my first job was in washington in 1982. i got the job because the guy interviewed me and was a swimmer. i swam, at least i claim to. -- claimed to. that led to me getting an interview. it is not like a marketplace through which the best people get chosen.

there are various filters. by raising the issue of political bias in the classroom, i thought i would create more of a conversation about people making affirmative steps to bring ideas that were underrepresented in their history or english departments -- at weslyan, diversity of ideas sometimes means you have leninists in the english department, and not just one kind of perspective. is a need for a takenr range of ideas seriously through research and teaching. i don't care about the broader range of speakers invited. that is not so much about the ongoing mission of universities.

it is going over ok, i guess. you don't need- affirmative action, our ideas are better! my friends on the left have sullied the words "affirmative action," by attaching them to conservatives. very few of my friends have been using these words in the last 15 years. they prefer inclusion and equity. important things about bias is that when you talk about it, you have a better chance of recognizing your own prejudices and can do something about it. there is no litmus test. i thought the censorship of prejudice was working very strongly in my classes and in the classes of my friends, and there are things we ought to do about that in an affirmative

way, not just relying on the marketplace of ideas. i am tempted to ask you questions about how one implements such policies and how you test where someone is on the youtical spectrum, and how avoid offensive questions in some areas there. michael: sometimes it is really hard to know if a person belongs to a certain group. that doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything at all. >> what happens if someone who seems to be conservative when hired changes his or her mind dramatically? michael: it happens.

it is not about the political affiliation of the person who hired. we make sure our curriculum take seriously a broad range of conservative ideas. i am sure it does in some respects. sanford: you are smiling as if you have something to say. >> there isn't an administrator as this table who doesn't think that groupthink is the enemy of academics. any group of people who get together tend to think that they think well and that people who think like them think well.

and it is in some sense the job of administrators and academic be trying confidently to keep bets pot stirring -- the keep -- be keeping that pot stirring. that seems to be a mom and the apple pipe problem. problem, how we exercise leadership whether we are department chairs or members of faculty hiring committees? we don't have affirmative action. we are bound by the law not to have affirmative action. it presents itself in that way. we have the opposite challenge, to make sure our student body reflects the state of california, given how competitive it is to get into any for your college in the state of california. that is an issue the chancellor

has drawn helpful attention to. it has made it extremely competitive to get in. this creates special challenges for us. the question of political correctness at berkeley is slightly different than at a small liberal arts college. we are a large public university like northwestern. the campus is too diverse. the scale is too large. the student body is more of a challenge of getting people to play on each other's neighborhoods. more spiritual and religious student groups than we groups.racial student

you are saying things that conflict with the public image at berkeley. we look at the letter that was quoted in "the new york stated more than 100 students signed a letter that urged a band one mile from the campus. -- a ban one mile from the campus. 1600rkeley, we almost have faculty and at least as many non-ladder ranked faculty. 100 can seem like a lot at davidson or wesleyan. at berkeley it is a drop in the bucket. question, and the and the scale question, media will always go for the most extreme voices.

the crisis of this trump election has created a political our chancellor likes to say this "shadow world" that lies outside of the world of the university, that has distorted what goes on the campus. berkeleyro came to in april of 2016. april of 2017, forgive me. he was invited by the college republicans. 70 seven college republicans showed up to hear him speak and he left campus and no one noticed. someonenths later, comes to campus, cost us $600,000 in security. thousands of people show up to see him. has so much more to do with the external environment, this

world of social media you are talking about, then it does the internal environment of the campus. many conservative speakers, the came, that milo elliott abrams was on the ofpus, i can run a list people who were on the campus. intellectual diversity is healthier than many people suspect. that doesn't mean there is not whereue were certain -- certain students' views and have receivedey less active attention from the faculty and administration, and i include conservative students. they have received less public attention. we need to meet those students where they are and help them develop a place in our public conversation where they feel more included.

sanford: i teach a freshman seminar at harvard on free speech. one of my students this past fall, one of them raised the question of how people who not only were sympathetic to donald trump, but were public about the fact they voted for him, how they were being treated at harvard, and whether they were being discriminated against were persecuted, or in some way disapproved of in a public manner. said 8%rticular student of the harvard community had been determined had voted for donald trump. what about that 8%? what do we do to make them feel comfortable? is that a legitimate question to be asked?

carol: at berkeley, it is about 7%-8% of the students who voted for donald trump. i don't know the faculty count. only 3% are african-american. if we're talking about marginalization, we need to be careful about how this conversation is playing out. playing out in the public media. college republicans have their booth on the plaza, and it has never been attacked. that faculty members are sometimes dismissive of students with conservative views. i think that is unfortunate and that is something we need to

have a conversation about. : you guys know more about this than i do. helpful, thet conflation of party affiliation or voting behavior with intellectual range? assume thatto people who are affiliated with the same political party or vote for the same presidential candidate share common ogicalectual and pedag approaches to the material they teach? ichael: i don't think it is fair. response, it is not about the litmus test. it is not about what their views are when you hire them, but what they teach.

people who identify as being on the left in the classroom teach courses that involve certain thinkers and religious traditions. i try to be careful about that, it is not just checking someone's voting record, but adding to the focusing on issues that are identifiable with this broad range of conservative thinking. it came partly out of talking with colleagues in the humanities at wesleyan and looking at the range of courses we had. it seems like a caricature in some departments. that doesn't mean we have to hire someone, let's say, who is a believer in certain religious traditions, but we think that then wen is important, have courses that deal with seriousness. i don't think the percentage of students who subscribe to the long end of the group -- it used

to be when 3% of the student body was african-american or , there were many faculty members who were empowered to be dismissive of them. sure that happens much less for those groups, and i think it should happen not at all four people -- it happens for groups -- it should happen for groups that we want to take seriously socially. maybe we need to be asking questions differently in the way we are asking them. what should the curriculum look like? what range of topics should we cover as an institution?

how should we give them the range of opportunities we think they ought to have? sometime students that have a particular identity dictates who theyshould read or where should find intellectual material from which to construct arguments for themselves. no, this is all yours to appropriate as you please. my students and i have such a different view of what that word means. intellectual range is available to you for thinking thrill and for crafting your own position. and crafting your own position. caroline: it seems like the

questions you are posing, more of aeems much pit for censorship and issues -- and other issues. you were going to talk about how conservative leaning and voting, publicly identifiable voters of donald trump may be treated on university campuses. onathan: this has already been taken up in the sense that individuals are marginalized and need some sort of protection have shockingly short memories. we as americans have shockingly short memories. when we think about women wearingn, undergraduates at the university until four years ago.

and their moms are just beginning to be the age that they could've been students at tl. -- at yale. however that is being constructed, religiously, people being marginalized have such experiences -- in this case, trump-voting students are now feeling that seem discomfort. not to say i am not sympathetic. i think we should the embracing -- be embracing students at universities and colleges and saying, you are part of a community, even when we disagree.

we need to be good historians as well. for some people, they cannot leave their "marginalized" body. ody.s literally their b folks that feel outrage that they are not being supported because of a particular ideology, which one cannot see, makes me flexible as an african-american male teaching a field that was dismissed under 25 years ago. i am sympathetic to the idea, but sympathy can't mean absolute agreement all the time. this, but youfix need to understand that you are part of a long history of people who don't feel they can speak up. if your voice is not being heard, i want to make sure you

have a chance and support your speaker. i expectyou do that, you as an ethical citizen to be very respectful when someone else says, my voice isn't being heard. and i can run to their defense also. that is about supporting a community that recognizes the history of people not having voices. iss is not a new problem, new in terms of social media, but not new. how do we address this in a way consistent with our past and try to get better? michael: on the social media side, i agree it changes the intensity and scale. wondering, in terms of faculty members' extra-curricular behavior,

utterances, is the issue of social media that we wouldn't know? no harm, no foul? isis it that the issue political beliefs way out of the mainstream, they talk to friends who probably kept that in confidence -- is that the issue? or is the issue that for us administrators, we have a barrage of activity? i agree with everything you said about what a faculty member does curricular should be his or her business, up to a point. ofere are legal issues, io course. media part after is no privacy, or something else -- that there is no privacy, or something else?

onathan: i fail to understand on why people feel the need to hit "send." i don't understand. have your idea and piece together that idea. i cannot conjugate this over-sharing culture. way in which i am out of step and thrilled to be out of step. i have to be honest. i don't think this is anything the ways in that which we are now forced to deal with things is new, not to take us in a whole different is ation -- an example state-enacted violence against minorities. it is not new. we know this, now we know in a different way because everyone has a camera.

it is a real example. speaking as an administrator, i hope our faculty ask with common sense. -- acts with common sense. there is a deficit on university campuses. social media has changed things so much. it is not just the standpoint -- we all know writing is difficult. hard. the social media world makes it so easy, to sit down, and u nedited and unfiltered non-reflective pieces get people in trouble. there something good about writing slowly.

by the time you finish, you get that out of your system and you are done. sanford: if those ideas are they the need thehere, surface,- beneath the it is good to be at the mouth, isn't it? jonathan: people have always been animated by their private angels and demons. we can act upon what they are peerg in the classroom, as reviewers, act in what they are doing and publications. hopeless.t, it is in the that puts us terrible space of almost like predicting behavior.

i don't want to be in that industry. carol: i think you raise an interesting question about whether light is the best disinfectant. the risk is the volume keeps going up and up. interestings an question about whether we are at the moment where the uses of social media are going to be re -regulated by changes in social norms, for example, senior administrators not sending emails on weekends, creating a setter and more delienated of zones of speech. or whether it will require greater regulation on the part of the public sector, safe the government, -- say the governmen

are relatively under regulated new technologies of communication. i think the jury is out about whether -- where that will end up with facebook and twitter.we are getting into the zone of fake news and the ability to distort communication. i think it is going to be interesting to see how that unfolds. we have been swept into this larger national problem, conversation that is not unique to campuses, but i think it is in some way a zoning question, not a content question. views andre extreme get into boxes and public squares. you can say a professor is wacky, but the ability of that studentsral -- and our

are reacting with a set of ideas that are troubling to us. anech is harmful, speech is act. speech in >> i want to get to that, but i also want to raise the question whether there are people in the room that have questions or comments. a couple i will save of our other topics until we've had a chance to take some. i don't know if there is a movable microphone. >> there's one in the center. will that work? >> let's try that. tell us who you are, please. i saw your hand first. >> i teach at the university of missouri and we've had a lot of

conflict there the past few years. the last comment about the speech act made me feel about an incident that happened. -- said i'm going to stand my ground and shoot every black person i see. to me, that's a violent speech. that creates an unsafe situation. but he only got ovation. he did not do -- got probation. he did not do jail time for that. the argument for that is that he has free speech. he's just saying something. he didn't have a gun or the means to carry this out. this is him making a rhetorical move. what happens if i say i'm going to shoot every black person i see? how do we delineate that line between speech that's a

micro-aggression or a subtle form of racism, and a something that is unsafe and creates discord and the consequences for that, you know? that's my question. >> if i may say so, that was not such a subtle moment. >> that's misery for you. >> anybody want to pick up on that? >> not that i want to pick up on that. nobody else was. it's a really good question. i actually think the law hasn't caught up with this phenomenon. what you describe to me sounds like yelling fire in a crowded theater. does that deserve jail time? i'm not going to get into litigating because i don't know -- i justns, but the think the law hasn't caught up. i don't think we adults from a developed mental --

developmental standpoint have slowed down enough to understand how somebody in their right mind can do this and think this is ok. i have daughters about to enter college that and she has grown up with social media and my wife and i recognize on many occasions that there is more than a chasm that is a typical generation chasm, mom and dad don't know what they are doing chasm now in which we communicate and teach our children, you don't say these things in a public space, which everything electronically is a public space. that's the best i can offer you right now. i think what he did was inexcusable, frankly, and ethically and morally and legally, to be honest. >> for me, it would be an issue for law enforcement, not a university issue.

i don't know anything about the identity of the person, but i would just think it would be a law enforcement issue. if it were a faculty member, that would be, with a false name , and you can change the terms to something expressing desire rather than a threat, then it becomes a university issue as well as a law enforcement issue because it's an employee employer relationship. i have to think hard about how one would deal with that. for me, it would be a law enforcement issue. >> i'm claire potter and i used i work with michael and then moved to the new school and i found out i was a liberal after all. [laughter]

so, i don't want us to get stuck on social media as you race so many things, but i have done a lot of social media in the last 10 years. i thought very seriously about it, i've written about it. one of the things that strikes me is -- and this was true in a panel i went to yesterday -- there are very few senior people grappling with social media as something that is no part of the university environment that people need to be trained in. when i went to the new school and signed a paper that said i was not allowed to use a university computer to abuse and defaming people and if i did, my privileges would be taken away. ant was not accompanied by orientation in which people talked about, what does it mean to be abusive to people on social media? to the extent that i actually find it very disturbing when people are fired for social media utterances.

all of the people who have been are well-known in the academic social media community for being abusive, nasty, trolling, so on and so forth. it's a story that hasn't accompanied these firings, but those of us targeted by these people might say somebody from the university should have acted long before whatever bomb this is an set off that then made the university the target of public criticism. i guess my question for all of you, particularly since universities are now using social media to promote their faculty, to promote themselves and so on, what kind of changes might you imagine in terms of pedagogy, in terms of what gets taught on your campuses about social media? in terms of how you orient young faculty to function in the current environment, which is not going away? >> i think that's a very good question.

>> i think we under train our faculty in general. it's something we've begun to tackle, that i can't say we've gotten to a place i'm satisfied with, but we do have a new teacher training program for all faculties. that is quite new at berkeley. the assumption was the phd process was a process that actually acculturated you into how to be a professor and, probably because of these media ruptures but partly because of the classroom technology has changed, this is a moment in which we need to do much more in terms of training both for faculty, for graduate students, and even for undergraduate students. in what ier invested would call coke regular kinds of

-- co-curricular kinds of efforts. that's a well taken point. >> change northwestern's faculty orientation for next year. thank you. >> it's better now. >> it will be better. >> i think one way of describing that would be to encourage self-censorship among the faculty. be careful about what you say online because we won't -- either we won't protect you, or we will get you. is, we want to protect you from bad trolls, but the main part is, if you say i think -- i'm not going to say it actually because we are on life c-span. but i might say something that might play well with your friends at the new school, but won't play well elsewhere. the university is going to walk away. i do think when we start talking

about training people about how to speak, especially extracurricular speech, that we ,re engaging in managed speech which is what we do, but we have to tread lightly about how much we think we know, the best way we admit us traitors know how to use social media is -- it knowters -- administrators how to use of the media. >> i'm pretty humble about how to use social media. has -- there are times when words on social media have the effect of the action, of the first question suggested. invocations are legally and ethically. i don't think we completely understand that. , and include social media

introduction to social media and using it in orientations. i'm not going to suggest it necessarily is the best training or that we have figured out how to do it, but we recognize its importance. it's interesting to think about who should do it. it certainly shouldn't be something like me who doesn't actually -- isn't a native to that environment at all. wonder again, how i to disagreement with michael earlier, how we describe this problem and the terms we use to describe it and what we are trying to do every -- trying to do. and i still think we haven't figure that out. >> think a lot of us have warned our students that anything they say on social media may come

back to haunt them. certainly, some of us have said that to our children. often for good reason. but i don't know about saying it to peers. i haven't thought about that. >> i think social shaming is a good idea in the sense that ouring out that behavior, -- has been very good at that, when faculty or students behave in ways that are inconsistent with our principles of community. i think that has been very helpful. very helpful. >> yes? >> i decided today, i think we are seeing a paradigm shift in the educational industrial complex. many times we see full-time professors aren't hired and multiple adjuncts are being hired in their place. how will this affect academic freedoms and free speech?

>> it's maybe beyond the scope of our panel, but it's certainly on a lot of people's minds. >> i think it you rose 10 when you erode tenure, you take away protections for freedom of speech. i'm at a place where this isn't an issue at my school, but very much an issue across the country. throughe institutions faculty senate's and other rules and regulations have given protection to part-time or adjunct faculty, but those protections are never as robust as they would be for people who have that full governance relationship with the institution through tenure. >> many cases that have come to public notice, where contingent faculty have made what seems like a possible -- plausible claim they have lost their jobs because of things they said.

>> it's obviously a problem. just the other day, i proved a new non-retaliation a language. i didn't write it, i just approved it. it includes this contingent population, as well. that everybody at our university should enjoy the luxury of being free from a retaliatory environment. of course, what constitutes retaliation is the debate and the adjunct faculty don't have the luxury of time to argue their case. i recognize it's a structural illogic to the problem. at least there is an increased recognition at my university and i think many others, that we must do better by adjunct populations. for a whole range of reasons, not the least of which seeing this address free speech panel

on campuses. >> yes, sir. >> i teach at the new york city college of technology in brooklyn. i have a couple of quick thoughts. one is, the weight not to seek social media as a totally new phenomenon is to think of social media as a close equivalent to living in a small town, going out to a local pub with a large group of friends, getting a big table, and talking very, very loudly in a room where there are lots of other people who can hear. and it just about any issue that arises with a post on social media could be seen with that as the model. the other thing i wanted to say is that this whole topic opens into a whole other tangent i think would be worth exploring, -- part is the part of

of the challenge of people getting strong opinions is to listen to each other and to engage specifically with each other's point of view and i think a good step in that direction would be to bring into the undergraduate curriculum some of the psychological, sociological research on why people get that it too strong opinions. why people, some more than others, develop packages of narratives that they considered to be the absolute truth and feel victimized by any contradiction to it that have their whole sense of identity wrapped up in it. there is material to work with to develop a set curriculum on that phenomenon to get people to reflect on why they feel so certain they are absolutely right. this applies all across the spectrum on everything. >> thank you.

>> i just want to say something very quickly learned -- quickly. i apologize. i do take your point, but the small-town situation, still people rumors will fly, but people know each other already. that's the thing that disturbs me about social media is that shared experience. the context is stripped away. this is white language matters so powerfully. we have all been in a situation where our email voice did not reflect our actual voice. if we use the wrong emoji at the end of it, good lord. there is a way that the stripping away of context is, i think one of the great challenges of it. i know from my experience at

yale, my students were up in arms getting outraged, not about something that happened at yale, but things happening at mizuho or things happening to some other place in the country. and they don't know the actual context in which something played out. it may have been horrible, it may have been not so bad, but it may not have happened at our campus, and yet it became this really as real as if it had happened in our campus. that's a hard thing to understand, but the context and the role of contact and language and protecting language and understanding of speech is a phenomenon we haven't talked about, but it's critical to any real conversation wrestling with the issue of free speech and free expression. add, just toso ecco what -- just a ecco what

what jonathanho said, a small group of people can be mobilized and a post on such a media can instantly mobilize thousands of people to act in a particular way. a very simple example of this is when my daughter was in high school, somebody had a party and it somebody posted on facebook or something and there were immediately thousands of people at this house in houston. there is no weight word-of-mouth or small town or anything -- that phenomenon is really new and it made a very realize that we had to think differently about where they were going. what would have been an act of rebellion by a teenager, a party in the house with her mother wasn't home, becomes potentially dangerous event. that's what happens on our campuses.

that could have been contained on the campus among people who know each other, suddenly becomes potentially dangerous and threatening and we are charged with managing that in a way that protects literally, protects the physical safety of people we are meant to protect, and also honors the values we think our institution stands for and that's hard. another quick point is, there are a lot of issues that i think get conflated again and we focus on discussing free speech versus managed speech or whatever we are doing. there's a lot of other questions. do we manage speech, and if so, how? can students learn to discuss and argue? can they argued in an echoed chamber? is that curriculum biased? getthese questions all conflated into single ones of

that swirl around free speech and i think we benefit of a debate if we separate them out. i don't know the right way to phrase those questions, but they are not one thing. you also, the question also revolved around, how do we teach kids to argue or discuss or be comfortable with ideas different than the ones they hold? that's a different question than the regulation of speech. >> i think that is the key question today is how to teach young people that it's not just all right to disagree with each other, but essential to hear each other out. sometimes in a pressured environment to step back and do that every -- and do that. we are very close to our deadline for finishing and i'm torn between taking one last very quick comment or question

perhaps and then asking each of the panelists to leave us with their last thoughts. >> i will be very, very brief. >> you are? >> a grad student at princeton. it strikes me that also shall mediate outrage isn't created -- social media outrage isn't all created equal. it doesn't translate to the kinds of campaigns we have seen against faculty and graduate students and other students at universities across the united states. we can't have this conversation without thinking about other factors. i'm thinking in general about how right-wing media when it comes to this campaign. it's not something that has been part of the conversation that much, but it's important because i can post something on twitter today and most people would annoy it. what if right part picked it up -- breitbart picked it up, it

might be different. >> some less thoughts before meet our deadline, michael? >> lots of questions get conflated about free speech and part of the reason they get conflated around free speech on campuses is because we expect -- andpuses to be inquiry and especially when people who are well beyond their college years and haven't been on campuses in a long time look at college campuses today, they don't see the kind of extremities and that they remember being a part of themselves. i think a lot of the criticisms of the culture of uniformity on college campuses comes from strange nostalgia about the unfettered experimentation of yesteryear, which is probably mostly fantasy. the good side of that is the

expectation is our college campuses should be places of inquiry extremities and and discovery. better thanso much the expectation that is also strike -- quite strong when you train folks to be part of the scheme every the silver lining -- schema. silver lining is that there are people skeptical about college because they have high expectations campuses should be a place of experimentation and discovery and we have to keep it that way. that i thinkll say it will be so important for us to meet our students where they are and i just want to ecco a comment that you may just a moment ago, creating -- we are going to have to be doing more active work to create an environment we assumed we created on college campuses, which is an environment where

students feel safe enough to be able to get outside of their comfort zones. what we have heard and learned in the last 18-24 months, is that they don't. that is felt quite broadly across the entire political spectrum. and so that is going to take a lot of work. i think we should lean into it and do it because it's absolutely quote of the enterprise that i think michael just expressed, people expect of us and it's the right expectation of us. , i welcomehat continuing conversations, sharing ideas about how to make that happen, but i know that it's not to dismiss it, but to engage them. >> i would agree with carla said. i think it's important for us to model aggressive and vigorous discussion for our students and

show that a person survived it. at the same time, we have to knowledge that there are real reasons in the world why some groups of our students feel that their lives are in precarious position and they are not making that up to read -- making that up. because they are not making that up, it's no good to pretend the world out there is not there. themnding ways to help manage their own feelings of vulnerability by sharing our feelings of vulnerability is important in building from that shared vulnerability some kind of culture of empathy and enabling our students to take responsibility for the culture they create and say, this is your culture to create, what kind of culture you want to live in? generally speaking, our students want to live in a culture where they can have civil discussion when they can hold their own views passionately and where they can empathize with someone

else who also feels marginalized for clear and compelling reasons. >> jonathan. >> that was a beautiful closing statement and i believe with everything you just said. the nation'son is, colleges and universities are becoming more demographically complex in every way you can understand that term. that's a good thing. but it's going to mean the conversations are going to be more complex. people coming from socioeconomic backgrounds, first-generation college backgrounds, you name it. that's a good thing, too. it's going to mean hardware. we go into our own communities and students to make sure we are engaged in that work as we are asking them to be. the one thing i will end on is a question that i think we all need to ask ourselves when it

comes to free speech. when we look at our campuses, who gets to speak? i think moby start to answer that question, we start to learn more about what is going on our campus, that means challenging people who claim they are not having that opportunity. placesobably are in many -- in many cases and probably walking around our campuses in ways we can't simply understand. therefore it makes it more difficult for them to actually speak for reasons that are about food, clothing, and shelter, for example. who gets to speak? is for me the biggest quote in question that we should all be asking. >> thank you all. thank you all for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> tweet us at c-span history, a tweet from madman across the water asking us about an issue that still resounds today. his question is about how many people were fathered by u.s. gis in vietnam. how are they treated 45 years after their u.s. departure? >> you could be featured during our next life program. join the conversation on facebook at assad.com -- facebook.com/cspanhistory. >> sunday night on afterwards, when it's march on washington cochair linda sartor reflects on the 2017 march and was ahead for the movement in her book,

together we ride: behind the scenes of the -- took around the world. >> what do you say to them? and what do you say to them to say to their sisters who may not have marched but are otherwise share their culture and their beliefs? >> i say to them that it may not feel like this, but we are fighting for them to and we believe in their potential to do the right thing. i know they continue to oftentimes disappoint, including disappoint their sisters, the ones they 49% vote republican, and i ask people to do -- i am not loyal to any medical party and i have been known -- any political party and i have been known to be a big critic of the democratic party. the reason i say that is in the last year, we got into a controversy about pro-abortion, pro-life, and can pro-life women the apart of this movement?

and what i said to people, we never said we were a pro-abortion movement. we are choice. we believe a woman should have the >> sunday night at nin 9:00 eastern on c-span2. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ollad teaches a teaches class on abraham lincoln in art and photograph. he describes how images might reach different audiences. more widelyould be spread than a single painting or photograph. this class is about 70 minutes. >> do you recognize this? do you recognize this statute? i will shame you a little bit. we should know this is maybe the